Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-11-04
VOL. XVII: NO. 46.

| w. Aoo uPHO4u LAS IISuISOuS YerQkcE
and just decision of the state court
IN It's retrioution for the murder of the
officers whose wives are now widows snd
children orphans. / trust and believe - !,
Governor will not interfere"
THE DECISION.
| WASHINGTON, Nov. 2.-Tte Chief
Justice began reading the opinion in the
anarchists case st 1906 o. N. and
! finished 1t with the announcement of the
denial OF the writ at I2:40. The follow
ing are the chief points of the opinion
after some explanation in reference as to
how the application in this case was made
and the duty Of the court in the premises.
The court says:
| "Re proceed then to consider Whist the
questions are on which, if it exists at al,
our jurisdiction depends. The psrticu-
Isr provisions OF the constitution Of the
/ United States on which the counsel
rely are found in Articles 4, ).
3 anc II OF the amendments IS follows
article 4. The right of the people to be
secure IN their persons, houses and eff
fects, against the unreasonable search
and seizures, shsll not be violated sAr-
tlcle .. No person shsl be
compelled in any criminal case TO be a
! witness against himself, nor be deprived
OF life, liberty or property without due
process of law article 6. In all
/ criminal prosecutions the accused shall
| ENJOY the right to G speedy and public
trlel by an impartial jury of
Inc state .nd district wherein the crime
WIS committed, which district shall have
oeen previously ascertained bylaw Ar
t1cie Il, section l: mo state shalt make or
enforce shy law which shall sbridge the
privileges or immUnities of the citizens
OF the United States, nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty or prop
erty without due process of law That
the first ten articles OF the amendment
were not Intended to, limit the powers of
TIE state governments in respect to
their own citizens, but TO op-
crate on the national government alone,
YVES decided more than half century ago
and that decision has been steadily I'D
hered TO since then, numerous cases bear
ing out the above assertion. Il was con-
tended, however, in argument that though
the first ten amendments were adopted as
limitation on the federal power yet so
Tar as they secure the fundamental rights
according to the common law Of man,
they make them the privilege and immun-
tiles OF man as citizen OF the United
States and cannot now be abridged
by state under the Fourteenth amend
ment. In other words, while the ten
amendments as limitslions on power
| only apply 10 the Federal government
and not to states, yet, in so far IS they
| declare or recognize the rights of per-
song, these rights are theirs SO citizens Of
| the United States, and the Fourteenth
| amendment as to such rights limits the
! state power as the ten amendments had
limited the Federal power. 1t is also
commended that the provision OF
the Fourteenth amendment which
declares that no state shall
| deprive any person of life, liberty or
property without due process of Law, i'm
| plies that every person charged with 8
! crime IN state shall be ensihysi,uui srlaI
! by an impartial jury, and shall not be
compelled to testify against himself. The
! objections are, in brief, l, that the
statute OF the state as construed by
the court deprives the petitioners
CT trial by an impartial Jury, and
2, that Spies was compelled to tes-
tify against himself. Before con-
sidering whether the constitution Of
the United States has effect, which is
claimed, it is proper to inquire whether
the federal questions relied on are part
OF this record. One statute to which OBJ
lection is made was approved March u,
1874, and has been in force since July L
OF tnat year. The complaint is that the
trial court acting under this statute
and in accordance with its requirements
compelled the petitioners against their
| viii TO submit to q trial By s jury that
was not impartial and thus deprived them
| of one OF the fundamental rights which
they had as citizens of the United States
under the national constitution, and IL
the sentence of the court is car
| RED into execution they will be deprived
of their lives without due process of law.
La HoTt VS.. Utah 100 U. S, 439, it was
! decided by this court that when q chal-
lenge by defendant in criminal case to
Juror for bias, actual or implied, is
diesllowed and the Juror is
thereupon peremptorily challenged
| by the defendant and excused,
and sn impartial and competent
! Juror is obtained in his place no injury is
done the defendant, if until the jury is
| finished he has other peremptory chal-
| lenges which he can use; and so, in Hays
VS.. Missouri 100 U. S., II it was said:
THE right to challenge is the right TO re-
jeCt-nOt 70 select juror. II from those
who remain an impartial jury is obtained,
the constitutional right Of the accused Is
maintained.' OF the correctness of
these rulings We entertain no
doubt. We are therefore confined
in Ehis case to the ruling on the challenge
10 Jurors who actually sat ct the trial. OF
these there we're but two, Theodore Den
ker, the third juror who was sworn, and
A. L. Sanford, the last, who was called
and sworn after all peremptory challenges
of the defendants had been exhausted. At
the trial the court construed the statute
that although juror called as jury
man may have formed an opinion
based upon rumor or upon newspaper
statement, but has expressed no opinion
q, to the truth of the newspaper state
nent, he is still qualified IS juror il ne
states that he can fairly and tmpartially
render q verdict thereon in accordance
with the law and the evidence zad the
court shall be satisfied of the truth OF
such statement. It is not test ques-
tion whether the Juror will have the
opinion which he has formed from the
newspaper changed by evidence, but
whether his verdict will be based only
upon the account which may here be given
by the witnesses under oath? Inter
preted in this way the statute is now ma
terially different from that Of the terri
tory of Utah, which we had under con-
siderstion in Hoyt vs.. Utah supra, and to
which we then gave effect. as that was
| ~ -